Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8608970" data-attributes="member: 16814">Goal post move.  This cannot be considered a general state, so you've elected to look only at a specific example.And now you're borrowing parts of my argument to shore up the other one.  Session 0 is a tool that specifically rejects "Trust the GM" by putting the campaign expectations up for discussion and consensus.  This is one of the developments in the community moving away from "Trust the GM" stuff.The baseline is that I am to "Trust the GM."  This means that, in any questionable event, I am to extend the courtesy of the doubt to the GM and go with it, trusting they have a good reason.  It isn't at all about final say in a rules adjudication.I'm beginning to think you've been arguing from a muddled position, here. Okay.  Part of the issue there is the P[player is bad] bit.  Some players are 100% good at one table, and "bad" at a different one.  The assumption on players that doesn't include the table is simplistic and will provide nice, pat, easy and wrong answers.No, I don't, either.  There's a lot of work being done by "default" there.  Most of that is an entirely different discussion.Yes, that's what I'm saying, and what is explicitly countered in "TtGMNTP."This really feels like you assigning homework for me to be able to make this point.  I don't accept homework assignments.Then I'm confused by your earlier argument that games can't happen if the GM reschedules, but can easily happen if the player does.  You seem to be wanting it both ways -- GMs are critical and therefore have special consideration AND play should only happen with an absent player if the player agrees.  Seems some special, and mutual, consideration is shared around there.And we're back to you arguing the bailey position in these arguments (unintentionally).  This statement is trivial.  As in it's trivially necessary.  There's no need to say this as a phrase because of course some amount of trust, respect, and dignity should be afforded to anyone you're willingly engaging in a social leisure activity with.  And this should 100% go both ways, so making it specific to one participant is pointless.So, then, when it is made specific, it's not saying this trivial thing, it's saying something more.  And when paired with a "Never Trust Players" which explicitly strips the normal understanding from other participants, it's very, very clearly saying something other than this.  TtGMNTP is not about the common trust and respect of a social engagement.  It's about how the GM should not be questioned and players are on notice that they will be questioned (and found wanting).  Especially when exactly this is openly stated by a proponent.  The very statement I responded to that prompted you to respond to me!Effectively, yes.  The statement has been in the form of "if the players can't get onboard they can go somewhere else."Again, the odd idea that players need to suck it up and go along with this game rather than discuss it.  I've already allowed that if agendas just don't match they just don't match.  But that's not at all what "Trust the GM Never Trust Players" is about.  I'm staying within the context of the discussion."Trust the GM Never Trust Players" does.  The fundamental tenet here is that you need to not question GM's choices because they're doing the Right Thing(tm).  This is paired with always keep an eye on the players because they're trying to get away with stuff.Um, I responded to [USER=86653]@overgeeked[/USER] on the topic, and you quoted me on that, and here we are?</blockquote>

Verification